Fredonia University Senate
April 6, 2009
Called to order at 4:07 PM
Chair Ana Maria Klein asked for a motion to approve the draft agenda. Sen. Nicholas Dhimitri (Student Association) moved, and Sen. Adrian McCormick (English) seconded. No discussion ensued. The Chair declared the motion to have passed.
Chair Klein then asked for a motion to approve the draft minutes of the meeting of March 2, 2009. Sen. Tim Overbeck (Communication Disorders and Sciences) moved, and Sen. McCormick seconded. No discussion ensued. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.
Report of the Vice President for Academic Affairs
The Chair recognized Sen. Melinda Karnes (Ex Officio, Assoc. VPAA) who presented the draft Academic Master Plan for 2009-2010 through 2013-2014. Sen. Karnes informed the body that every five years we renew our curricular plan with SUNY Central. All programs going through any type of change get that change reflected in the Academic Master Plan. The far right column is the year the program review will occur. The Deans and the VPs Council came to agreement that if a program is going through accreditation that we would work very hard with the chairs to use the same data for both reports, using the accreditation data and tailoring it to fit the SUNY program review reports.
Sen. Karnes indicated that we should give our comments to our Chairs, and the Chairs would send those comments on to the Deans.
Sen. Bruce Simon (Ex Officio, Vice-Chair) asked if Graduate Council and various graduate committees had input into this document? Sen. Karnes answered that Academic Affairs Comm., Graduate Council, and the Deans had input. She believes the Deans have shared the information (or soon will be sharing the information) with the Chairs.
Sen. Ziya Arnavut (At Large, Natural Sciences) commented that the only new program he sees is graduate level in Computer Science. We don't have any money for new positions. How realistic is the date of 2010 for that? Sen. Karnes responded that is why the Deans have to look at this closely, and discuss it with the Chairs. Resources are part of this planning.
Sen. Kerrie Wilkes (Library) asked what does it mean "to be deactivated"? Sen. Karnes offered that means that we haven't seen the paperwork yet. There is a certain amount of time allowed for students to finish a program that is being discontinued. Nan Bowser added that we have five years before deactivation becomes real, in case students have been admitted and need to finish, or in case we have a change of heart.
This will be voted on at the May meeting once the necessary changes that arise from the review process and your comments are taken into consideration.
Report of the Chairperson of the University Senate
Chair Klein thanked all who had been working with her during this year, and informed the body that the Senate Executive Committee works collegially, crafts all written materials as a group, and develops consensus before acting. She thanked University Faculty Secretary Vincent Courtney and SUNY Faculty Senator Cheryl Drout for their service, which will end in May. She also thanked Vice Chair Bruce Simon and Governance Officer Charles Davis. Each officer received a round of applause.
Chair Klein then asked Governance Officer Davis to present the slate for Senate Officers for 2009-2010. Sen. Davis informed the body that the following slate was being presented by the Senate Executive Committee:
Chair: Bruce Simon, English
Vice Chair: Dale Tuggy, Philosophy
University Faculty Secretary: Saundra Liggins, English
Governance Officer: Charles Davis, Sport Management and Exercise Science
He also indicated that the position of SUNY Faculty Senator will be voted upon by the entire faculty, along with the elections of At Large senators and committee vacancies.
He asked if there were any nominations from the floor. There were none. Since there were no further nominations, Sen. Davis asked for a vote of acclamation to approve the election of the slate as presented. The voice vote passed unanimously.
Chair Klein recognized Vice Chair Bruce Simon who will deal with the bylaws changes.
Sen. Simon indicated that the substantive changes will likely have a few more changes with regard to the wording concerning various committees, but we will still vote on that document in the May meeting. After that vote, the editorial changes will be put to a vote of the full faculty for ratification en masse, and the substantive changes will be put to a vote of the full faculty as individual items. It is hoped that we can get this process completed by the end of the semester.
Sen. Simon then presented the editorial changes, asking if there were any questions. Sen. Wilkes asked if under line 33-38 we really are replacing the word "senators" with "faculty". After discovering that she had misinterpreted and was in the wrong article of the bylaws, she withdrew her question.
Sen. Christopher Taverna (At Large, Professional Divisions) asked when you replace the word "senators" with "faculty" are you leaving out the professionals? Sen. Simon answered that no, in the definitions, "faculty" refers to the academic enterprise, including the academic staff and the professional staff.
With no further questions, the vote was taken on the entire package of editorial changes. The package was approved by unanimous voice vote. The package will now be put forth for ratification by the entire voting faculty. [Secretary's added note: PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR COLLEAGUES RETURN THEIR RATIFICATION BALLOTS, EVEN IF THEY ONLY ABSTAIN. IT IS VITAL TO GET A CERTAIN RESPONSE OF THE VOTING FACULTY, OR THE MEASURES FAIL. WE NEED AT LEAST 25% OF THE VOTING FACULTY TO RETURN THEIR BALLOTS. THE LAST RATIFICATION VOTE MET THAT CRITERION BY ONLY A FEW VOTES (LESS THAN SIX!)]
Sen. Simon then presented the substantive changes. These are for discussion today. We will vote on these at the May meeting. Some of the changes are things the Executive Committee is trying to bring into alignment with current practice, or to make more consistent, to address gaps, etc., and some are coming from the Senate Committees. Some of these changes are small, yet significant conceptually. For instance, the last change that was ratified was the addition of a seat for a librarian on the Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee. The first substantive change we are recommending removes that parenthetical statement "(although "librarian" is a title denoting academic rank, the librarians shall be grouped with the professional staff for the purposes of local governance)", which no longer makes sense because Senate is no longer divided among three divisions (Arts and Humanities; Natural and Social Sciences and Professional Programs; and Professional Staff). When you make this kind of change, it will affect other parts of the document, such as the language for lines 95-127, which is basically an editorial revision but moves the librarians out of the professional category and preserves the current representation structure of the Senate as a whole. The fact that the librarians are different in this language takes it from an editorial change to a substantive one. We are only human, so if you notice things that may be noted for the wrong page, or that we're completely missing that may be affected because of the changes we are recommending, please let us know. We invite discussion, comments, suggestions, and preferred language; please get in touch with us. The end goal is to make Senate a more effective, autonomous, deliberative body.
Any questions?
Sen. Wilkes: The librarians have one seat, but right now we can also run for an "At Large, Divisional" seat. So will we still be able to run for that At Large seat. Sen. Simon: No. Wilkes: I will have to go back to my constituents and ask about that. Simon: If you have language that would be useful, please share it.
Sen. Amy Cuhel-Schuckers (At Large, Professional Division) asked you say "Each academic electoral unit", do you intend to say "Each professional staff management area" in the paragraph before that talks about the four electoral units? Simon: No, that is taken verbatim from the current bylaws. The professionals got two At Large seats "en masse", as an entire electoral unit. Our principal was to try to eliminate redundancy in the entire bylaws. The only thing new there is department name changes, and that departments will now have to report their election results and their processes, and they now have an extra month to do that. The Senate "At Large" representation isn't being changed at all.
Sen. Simon commented that one of these major changes concerns the Senate Executive Committee, which had been inadvertently left out in a clerical error while combining various versions of these bylaws, and had been in fact replaced by a paragraph about the Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. So basically, we cobbled together language about the Senate Executive Committee from other parts of the bylaws, but that raised the question of where Planning and Budget Advisory Committee should be placed. It is currently not a Standing Committee. Would it be more effective if it were to be once again a Standing Committee? Or does that not matter? But we wanted the PaBAC portion to be as full as the other Standing Committees with the same types of language. We are working with the PaBAC to come up with that appropriate language, which should be included in the final version of these substantive changes when we vote in May.
Then there is the CCC Committee, which is still having some ongoing discussion about language. Members of that committee want changes to lines 428-446. This is brand new language. The Committee wanted to clarify that the Director of the CCC program is a member of the committee serving in an advisory capacity.
And we codified our definition of "ex officio" which in some versions of Roberts' Rules are voting members. They have never been voting members of the Senate at Fredonia. And that raises the question do we want all committees to have the same model? Academic Affairs Committee is in favor of having the VPAA or his/her designee being an ex officio member of that committee, which will foster improved communication. The Graduate Council doesn't, but if it's not broke, we don't need to fix it. Student Affairs Committee has no problem with the VPSA being a voting member of that committee. We are looking for feedback, not just to have "stupid consistency", but we are looking for consistency when it makes sense.
There were no further questions.
Chair Klein asked Vice Chair Simon to present on the Draft Personnel Policies.
Sen. Simon indicated there was a handout available that had not been in the posted materials for this meeting. The Senate Executive Committee has been working hard to get the process moving in this area.
The campus's normal process for dealing with anything that has been proposed by a task force or being offered as policy by the administration is normally for such items (that do not involve Union negotiations) to be given to a Senate committee for review, discussion, possibly revision, and then reporting to the Senate with recommendations. This is the normal consultation process.
Over the past month or so, this process doesn't seem well understood. Even Chairs were saying the draft policies violate the role of the Senate. While there are some legitimate concerns over timing, it was never the intent of the Executive Committee to never have a role regarding these draft policies in areas that the Senate can legitimately consult on. There are some obvious and not-so-obvious changes that are in the purview of the Union contract, where UUP has the sole negotiating right, and the Senate has no intention of stepping on the Union's toes. We want to see what conversation can get started, and what might come from those discussions. The previous Senate Executive Committee had a role in developing the Memorandum of Understanding II, and also helped establish the broad guidelines for the Task Forces that did the ground work before these draft policies came into being. About a year ago in the Senate, we received some broad issues, and the administration then crafted some draft policy. This took longer than anyone expected, but we aren't criticizing for that!
The Senate has a serious role to play in all matters in terms of consultation with the administration. The Union can only be involved as far as contractual issues are concerned. We are asserting our role. There is a lot of work involved, and further developing the conceptual map will be an arduous process. However, you can take an hour and summarize the concerns that have been raised. The Faculty and Professional Affairs Committee (FPAC) will get everything that the Senate Executive Committee gets, will be able to ask administration to pass along anything they have received, and the Union to pass along anything they have received, and that committee will summarize this for the Senate. We can identify four holistic issues and nine specific issues that have come up from everybody who has commented thus far. Sen. Taverna and I are trying to get a meeting together where I will pass along my rough draft of the conceptual map. The Senate Executive Committee doesn't want the FPAC to begin with a blank slate. We have lots of materials that we can look at and review. Some faculty and staff have offered assistance to the Committee: John Staples; Janet Mayer; and Beez Schell. We are envisioning that these people will serve as volunteer conduits to streamline information to the committee. We realize that not all departments are going to be able to get back to FPAC with the level of thoroughness that we might like to wish for. Dr. Staples can help the committee tack the evolving response of Chairs. Beez Schell (who helped with the draft) can serve as a conduit to the administration, and Janet Mayer can serve not only in a role of technical support, but is also a Union representative and a member of the local UUP Executive Board can help junior faculty with their meetings and pass their comments along in a non-threatening way. FAPC has a whole bunch of experience with forums and surveys. This report is meant to be informational, to give all a sense of the big picture. There have been things raised in some departments that never occurred to faculty in other departments. The Committee can take this information and run with it. We plan on distributing what they produce before the May meeting. Why this semester and this timeframe? My answer is that the process may not get started without it, and if the Senate doesn't get involved now, we will once again not be playing a leadership role. There is confusion about what we can talk about with various other parties. The Senate needs to have a role in this process. The charge also lays out a second step where (as a Senate) we eventually make a recommendation to both the administration and the union. To the union: matters of negotiation; to the administration: matters requiring consultation. Once we have determined which matters are for consultation and which require negotiation, when we return in the fall, we can get the things that are not the Senate's business off our plate, and deal with those that are our business. At some point we have to make some decision or decide to punt. We want to have a discussion of what the Senate ought to do. What role do you want Senate to play? What role do you want the Union to play? Should we hold off asking for negotiations on those aspects that are contractual? Whatever the answers, we need to look at this holistically before we will be able to determine those answers.
Sen. Markus Vink (History) commented that he thought the charge should also reflect the distinction that you make changes that are subject to UUP bargaining and those that are not. Sen. Simon responded that he thought that was there. Sen. Vink then added that he felt it was not clearly stated. Sen. Simon continued that the only charge to the FPAC is the first sentence. The FPAC will not be making any recommendations to the Union. That is a Senate matter. In the "conceptual map" the number one issue is clarifying those areas that are consultation and those that require negotiation. The second we all agree to do anything, I will post it widely.
Sen. Peter Sinden (substitute, Sociology, Anthropology, etc.) asked what is the function of this charge? What is the product? Will we vote on something? Sen. Simon responded it is to provide the Senate with a summary. We are not even sure that all the problems have been identified. I think we need an overview. We have heard some opinions, and seen some rationales for those opinions, but have seen no overview. And I want this process to include the Senate. If we don't have the same information that the administration and the Union have, then we are working in the dark. Second, obviously if the information is not known when we vote to recommend to the Union what we would like them to do, we will not know enough at that point to know whether we should vote to recommend such action. I want to have a vote that will be based on as much information as we can get together in an overview form. Sen. Sinden asked does the Union have official standing in the bylaws? Sen. Simon responded the Senate Bylaws are for us. We have a role in consultation on matters that are being dealt with on campus. The difference between consultation and negotiation is in theory a clear one, but in practice it can get thorny. Sen. Sinden continued that he doesn't know why we'd be recommending to the Union. Sen. Simon replied that the Senate can do that or we can decide that we shouldn't.
Sen. Arnavut stated that he was very happy to see this process started. Even though we have hot discussions going on. The timeline is worrisome. It is three weeks from now that the committee will be reporting, and we will have a possible vote then. People want to take more time, look at this from all angles, 360 degrees. From what I know, we are not labor specialists. When it comes to this on the labor side, there is a relationship to the labor agency of the State of New York. When the task force was formed, the Union asked for them to sit down work with the Union on this issue, and as a Senate with the responsibilities that belong to the Senate. Sen. Simon responded, yes, the Senate can try to get involved to resolve this deadlock that has occurred. We might recommend to the Union and the Union will have to consult with its labor relations specialists, and the process of opening up [local] negotiations is not a simple one, but the Union likes it when we come up with more clarity, and bottom-up improvements with processes. Sen. Arnavut continued and we also don't want to impose rules. Sen. Simon answered, "Yes."
Sen. Stephen Kershnar (Philosophy) commented that he sensed there was widespread opposition to the draft. Sen. Simon responded that he was not seeing that in all the departments as they look at the draft. There may be a baby not to be thrown out with the bath water.
Sen. Wilkes asked if this will be voted on up or down. She added that she is the lone representative in the Senate for an area that has 32 pages addressed to it in the draft. We'd like to see votes on portions of the document. Sen. Simon responded, exactly, that is why the "conceptual map" overview idea is needed. There may be areas that we agree to scrap, or to amend, or to accept. Right now we don't know what is procedural change requiring Union action and what is not. Sen. Wilkes then asked with your holistic viewpoint do you mean holistic divided by 3? Sen. Simon answered more likely holistic divided by 13 right now! Sen. Wilkes then asked can the librarians send our report to the FPAC, or does the wording in the charge mean "past tense" only? Sen. Simon responded that no, we are not looking at only what has already been sent. Everyone is free to send their comments to the FAPC. This is a work in progress.
Dr. Ruth Antosh commented this is a good idea. Her concern was that as the departments read other departments reactions, their original report might change. We met and then saw others responses and thought "Oh my goodness! We didn't even think of this." How do you leave time for reflection and further response? Can individuals send in comments? Sen. Simon answered, "Yes." Anybody may. The process is the idea that people's minds change as they see it develop. That is deliberation! Dr. Antosh continued: the last part of the charge allows time to study and research. This report will have a bearing on whether we want to do this in May. They can also recommend that they spend more time before they write that report? Sen. Simon responded, "Yes." Please let your constituents know that anyone can send comments to Christopher Taverna, and anything that comes to the Executive Committee will also be sent on to him.
Sen. Wilkes asked by when? Sen. Simon answered that is still to be determined. [NOTE from Faculty Secretary: at a meeting held after this Senate meeting the deadline was considered to be April 24, with those submitting comments to be asked to try to provide them earlier than that date if possible.]
Reports of the Standing Committees
Academic Affairs Committee: Dr. H. Joseph Straight
Dr. Straight brought the proposal to move the Music Business track from Interdisciplinary Studies to the School of Business. He commented that a couple of changes have been made to the proposal since it was first brought to the Senate in March: most notable was a change in the list of supporting courses. Originally the School had envisioned having a required separate ethics course in each of their programs. Subsequently, they have decided they wouldn't have enough resources to approach ethics in this way, so they will return to the model of having the principles of ethics woven into their existing courses, so the supporting course have been put back to 12 hours.
There was no further discussion of the proposal.
The proposal passed with a unanimous voice vote.
Dr. Straight then moved to the Community Music concentration in the School of Music. There were no changes to this from the presentation in March.
There were no questions and no further discussion.
The proposed concentration passed with a unanimous voice vote.
Dr. Straight then brought the Learning Assistants Policy to the floor. He indicated that there was one controversial section, that on allowing undergraduate students to grade other undergraduate students, so he would ask for a motion to divide the question.
Sen. Taverna moved the division as requested. Sen. Dhimitri seconded. An unidentified senator indicated there was also some problem concerning the "Demonstrator/Presenter" portion. Sen. Vink moved to amend the motion on the floor to include dividing that portion for a separate vote. Sen. Kershnar seconded the amendment. There was no further discussion on the amendment. The amendment passed with a unanimous voice vote.
The motion on the floor is to divide the topic into three sections.
There was no further discussion of the motion. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Dr. Straight then began to present the grading portion. Sen. Dani McKinney (At Large, Social Sciences) asked a point of information: in what order are we taking these? She thought the whole with the exception of the grading and demonstrator portions would have been first. Dr. Straight indicated that he felt that once we got the divided matters out of the way, he felt we would know better what we have [with the whole.]
Sen. Sinden commented that he thinks the grading portion is a uniformly bad idea. Using undergraduates as assistants in our classrooms scandalizes all of us who teach. As a parent, if I had learned that my child was being taught and graded by an undergraduate, I'd be mad as hell. If we implement this, we have to make that known through our admissions process to anyone who applies. And finally, what this does, it replaces us as faculty members, and put us in a management position vis a vis some of our students. It allows us to exploit the labor of those students. What do they get in remuneration? Not part of our salary. If this is a good idea, we can test that by publicizing it and see what some of the public (applicants, parents, tax payers) react to this.
Sen. Kershnar asked what is the default position if we vote this down? He felt this would be the way it stands if this language were voted down. Current policy allows undergraduates to grade. Dr. Straight responded that the VPAA put out guidelines last semester that clearly states that undergraduates are not allowed to grade other undergraduates.
Sen. Dhimitri commented that the students have a number of thoughts about this proposed policy, but as for the grading issue, about 50 students in a discussion on this overwhelmingly felt that allowing undergraduates to grade other undergraduates was not a good idea. By the end of the discussion none of those students wanted it. They saw a number of problems, whether what were being graded was essays or multiple choice. There are issues of confidentiality and accountability that concern the students.
Sen. Arnavut stated that he shares the students' opinion strongly. What is the best model for education? No assignments or an assignment every week?
Sen. Doug Jordan (Student) asked how are we planning to enforce confidentiality? Dr. Straight answered that some might use a cover page on the assignment with personal information, that the faculty member would code and then remove the page. The undergraduate grader would not know the identity of the person who did the work that was being graded.
Sen. Nan Bowser (Registrar) commented on the response to Sen. Kershnar's question. There is no official policy. Some departments do allow undergraduates to grade. Yes, guidelines were issued last fall, but we have several years of practice that has been inconsistent across the disciplines. Some departments have policies that were approved in the distant past.
Sen. McKinney added that Psychology was one of those. We have students who get a stipend, teaching labs. To not be able to offer them these experiences will put them at a disadvantage when applying to graduate schools because the big schools, like Penn State, have lots of students who do this all the time. Our students do minimal grading. You disadvantage our students on their grad school applications if you disallow this.
Sen. Kershnar asked again, if we vote this down, what will the policy be, the VP guidelines, or will the "past practice" policies be the rules? Dr. Straight said there isn't a current policy. Sen. Kershnar followed up couldn't we say the past practice is the current policy? Dr. Straight responded one of the departments that had this policy for many years, ended it last year when the guidelines were put out. President Hefner can veto this if it is retained. I just ask that we please enforce whatever the policy becomes from now on.
Sen. Dhimitri asked what the policy will be if this is voted down. Dr. Straight answered if we pass this with no allowance for undergraduates to grade, it would be that way from now on.
Sen. Mike Szocki (Computer and Information Sciences) asked what was the guidelines' position? Dr. Straight answered there were no conditions under which grading was allowed by undergraduates.
Sen. Leesa Rittelmann (At Large, Arts) commented that it is possible in Art History courses that the quality of student learning might be diminished if the classes are large, if the professor can't grade huge numbers of essay exams, without an assistant. I've been forced to move to using Scantron sheets, which is not the best way. Learning assistants get stipends or credit, and close mentoring on pedagogical strategies, which gives them a leg up on grad school, and the professor gets to retain the best testing methodologies.
Sen. Kershnar asked why can't the undergraduate return the assignments to the students? Dr. Straight indicated that was a confidentiality problem.
[Unknown senator] indicated that they had heard of abuse where the instructor was passing the buck to the grader. If there was a question about the grade, s/he would send the questioning student to the learning assistant. That is an inappropriate use of a learning assistant.
Dr. Straight commented that when the Academic Affairs Committee gets syllabi, there is evidence that some faculty don't know how certain technologies can help, so we send them to experts on campus who help them to understand what can be done. Technology can help us to avoid unnecessary use of undergraduates to grade.
Sen. Kate Levy (Music) commented that apprenticeship is a valid way of teaching lessons, one on one or in very small classes. We often use undergraduates to teach music lessons to non-major students on their instruments. This is not grading, but would be applying to other parts of this policy. Apprenticeship situations need to be addressed. It is a strong tradition in our field. It may be appropriate in ways that this policy does not deal with it. Dr. Straight added that the Committee did say that this was not meant to be restrictive. Sen. Levy added that they do have to sign up for our performance practicum course.
Sen. Simon asked what was the rationale for modifying the guidelines and bringing this compromise system in, or the control methodology? Dr. Straight responded that we didn't see the budget situation improving and saw class sizes likely growing, and didn't see the likelihood of large class sizes going away. We saw examples where the undergraduates were being used appropriately to help in large lecture classes, where you can give meaningful assignments. The grading can be the overwhelming problem that can sink such assignments. Sen. Simon then commented that with graduate assistants, in SUNY they are represented by a union. They can bring grievances, and can negotiate about working conditions and terms of employment. Unless these learning assistants create a union, they have no protection. They have no recourse if they feel they are being exploited. And the students in their classes have no way to say they don't like being graded by an undergraduate. Dr. Straight indicated that the Committee tried to provide for a course with a syllabus that very clearly spells out what their role would be. Is this perfect? No. But we were convinced that there were some good models around.
Sen. Rittelmann commented that it was her understanding that this is why this document exists; we are trying to set up a course in which students can enroll. Choosing to elect this kind of educational experience can be positive if you approach it that way. It won't be like the grad assistant situation. We are helping these students to be on their way to becoming better teachers themselves.
Sen. Sinden added you all know my view. It seems to me that if it is to be done, students ought to be made aware before they enroll in these classes, they will be taught by undergraduates and may be graded by undergraduates. They should be fully informed. That should be an essential element. Dr. Straight answered we talked about that at the last meeting: adding a note indicating that in the course selection lists.
Sen. Szocki then said that past experience is the best predictor. Have there been any issues in departments that have done this? Dr. Straight responded that there have been some problems and complaints. He was not sure if these were in courses where it was well known that this was done or in courses where this was being done under the table. Yes, these problems went to higher administrators. We want to be able to say this is our policy with these controls and safeguards.
Sen. Dhimitri stated his agreement with Sen. Sinden. Students should be made aware if this is going to be happening prior to registering. He is not naïve. He realizes there will be large classes. We have learning assistants who can help without allowing them to grade. Grading is a completely different conversation than these other items, and can be disconcerting for students. If this becomes University policy, there is going to be major concerns from the students, and probably a lot of negative feedback. It is difficult to police case by case. Undergraduates should not be grading other undergraduates.
Sen. Sinden moved to amend this document to add that as a matter or practice, student grading will not be allowed on this campus. Dr. Straight (in his role as parliamentarian) ruled the motion out of order. If this section is voted down, that would have the same effect.
Sen. Dhimitri then asked if we vote this down, can we amend the remaining document to say what Dr. Sinden just moved? Dr. Straight replied that he thought the way we worded it we were listing the roles that would be allowed, but there are some who want to make it more explicit, so we could do that after this question has been voted on.
There was no further discussion. The vote was called for, and Dr. Straight indicated that we are voting up or down whether the grading portion will be approved.
The section allowing grading by Learning Assistants was disapproved by voice vote. It will not be part of the document.
Dr. Straight then moved on to the Demonstrator/Presenter portion.
Sen. Vink argued that his concerns were similar to those surrounding grading. If people know that a class is going to be taught by undergraduates, that will affect the status of our institution and the perception of the quality of our instruction, will infringe on the activities that are the prerogatives of the instructor, and give rise to the issue of no union and exploitation concerns.
Sen. Dhimitri indicated that he had real concerns about recruiting students in the admissions process if we allow undergraduates to "demonstrate and present" in classes. One reason students come here is because we have the expectation that we will be taught by professors, not even by graduate students. That is what makes Fredonia so attractive and appealing. To take that away is of concern. Being taught by undergraduates would have stopped me from coming here.
Dr. Straight then said the key phrase is "on occasion."
Sen. McKinney raised the point that the speaking intensive courses when they were originally proposed before the new CCC were to be peer evaluated, and peer to peer teaching can be good for certain purposes.
Sen. Jordan asked what does "on occasion" mean? Once a semester? Once a week? Would this prohibit student presentations as assignments? Dr. Straight responded such presentations as assignments are for students who are not Learning Assistants. This applies only to Learning Assistants. Yes, it is vague, but instructors will submit a syllabus. We were thinking that "on occasion" would mean once or twice a semester.
Sen. Dhimitri agreed that peer to peer instruction is good, but that is covered by the "tutor" section of this proposal. What if we had a learning assistant who said they presented 70% of the class days? The professor could think that was occasional. Perhaps the syllabi can have it, but you don't see it in this possibility. Dr. Straight answered that is the need for it.
Sen. Arnavut then said in lab oriented classes, students can help. One professor cannot be with every student in such a situation when they need help all at once. Some form of assistance is needed.
Sen. Kershnar asked about the language on page one. All these roles are appropriate, and your response was they are not exhaustive. Dr. Straight indicated the roles are exhaustive, what was under those roles is not exhaustive. Sen. Kershnar continued if we vote this down, would we have to change this? Dr. Straight answered it was our intent that those roles are exhaustive. We could add more in the examples listed under each role.
Sen. Szocki then said as the parent of three college students, the overwhelming feeling that I got talking to people at UB was that even using graduate students for teaching, even their faculty give an almost apologetic feeling when talking to parents of students.
Sen. Cuhel-Schuckers then asked was this included in the VPAA's guidelines? Dr. Straight answered I want to say yes, but I really can't recall. Ginny? VPAA Horvath responded yes, I think it was there. Dr. Straight added we only added proctoring and grading I think.
Sen. Patricia Astry (Biology) commented that some of this has to do with the nature of the course itself. I teach a 1 credit freshman seminar that deals with sexually transmitted diseases, and can't imagine doing it without the senior learning assistants. I'm the authority, but rely on the students outside of the class to gather what kinds of misinformation are my students struggling with, that I wouldn't be aware of otherwise. The students from STEP are also very valuable giving presentations.
The question was called.
The vote was taken, with an affirmative vote meaning to retain this section. The voice vote was inconclusive. A showing of hands vote was asked for:
In favor: 20
Opposed: 14
Abstentions: 1
The motion passed. The section will remain.
Then Dr. Straight moved to the Learning Assistants Policy as a whole, with the grading proposal deleted.
Sen. Rittelmann commented about taking attendance: in my department our policy is the grade is diminished after a certain number of absences. Is this part of grading? Sen. Simon responded are the Learning Assistants responsible for totaling the absences? Sen. Rittelmann replied yes, for me, but I'm not sure what my colleagues are doing. In my classes the Learning Assistants would total the absences at mid-term time, simply recording them. Dr. Straight then added that he wouldn't consider that to be grading. We would look at your syllabus and note it is an important role, and we'd indicate to you that you'd want to make sure the Learning Assistant is doing an accurate job with this aspect.
Sen. Sinden moved to amend the document adding language that notification be made about each course that would make use of an undergraduate learning assistant and that such information be made available as part of admissions information to prospective students and their parents. The motion was seconded by Sen. Nicole Matteson (Student). Sen. Dhimitri asked for the addition of "prior to registering for the course" as a friendly amendment. The friendly amendment was agreed to.
Sen. Simon suggested that if the Senate wants to improve the amendment, perhaps we should send it back to the Committee?
Sen. Dhimitri added that his amendment was only to suggest when students should be made aware of this fact.
Sen. Arnavut commented that he doesn't see Buffalo say in this class you will have a graduate assistant. There is no information at their registration or in their catalog. Students learn this at the time of taking the class, in the syllabus, and nowhere else.
Sen. Matteson commented that students are paying a lot of money for their education. She is not saying that learning assistants are diminishing our education, but students should be able to know this information.
Sen. Angela Haas (At Large, Arts) stated that there are two issues. One is an abuse of this policy; another is that it is good for the learning assistant and also for the class. I would never just hand my class over to an undergraduate to teach. I'd be right there to fully expand on information and help answer my students' questions. We're taking this to the extreme. There are many uses for learning assistants, and these are not bad things. Sen. Simon then offered note that this doesn't take anything away. It just adds a publishing requirement. Sen. Haas continued but this sounds like very negative publishing to me. Sen. Dustin Parsons (English) then commented you could make such a publishing requirement positive: our students will
have the opportunity to teach classes... Sen. Sinden clarified that he wants a code letter by each course that with the P and the other codes. Sen. Taverna agreed with Senator Haas that what we are discussing is the extreme. We want to publicize that these courses are going to be taught by undergraduates, and yet we explicitly state that the course will not be taught by undergraduates. We are talking about an occasional student handing out exams, or giving a brief presentation. Sen. Jordan asked how would you actually notify if you are registering, especially if a class sometimes has a learning assistant and sometimes doesn't? Sen. Phil Hastings answered that is why you have syllabi. Dr. Straight added that what Sen. Sinden wants is a code in the course list. Every school does this to some extent, but we'd be honest about it.
There was no further discussion. The voice vote failed. The amendment did not pass.
Sen. Kershnar asked if you look at the proposed policy, it says in the second paragraph that the student should have taken the course. Does that mean must or is it recommended? Dr. Straight answered we are coming back with more editorial changes for this. It is essentially recommended. For a lower level math course, if the Learning Assistant hasn't taken that exact course but is an overall excellent math student who has excelled in higher level math courses, we would accept that. What we are getting at is really equivalent experience.
Sen. Dhimitri asked about implementation. Under the presenter discussion, it was indicated that the amount that this person would present would be part of the syllabus that would be approved by the "usual process". Does all of that information get included as part of the "usual process"? Sen. Simon responded for approval of new courses or courses with significant changes, the department has to recommend, and then submit the syllabus up the ladder through the Deans and Academic Affairs Committee, etc. It is a very detailed process.
Dr. Straight added that the Committee will take under advisement all those comments that could be reflected in editorial amendments. We want to approve this today in concept, with language revisions of some of the finer points coming later.
Sen. Dhimitri asked about the language regarding grading. Dr. Straight said that what the Senate voted today on that matter would be done according to the Senate's wishes.
There was no further discussion.
The voice vote was inconclusive. The show of hands outcome was:
In favor: 24
Against: 5
Abstentions: 0
Then Dr. Straight introduced the proposal for the Fredonia Academic Community Engagement (FACE) Center.
Sen. McCormick noting that several Senators had left asked for a quorum call.
It was determined there was no longer a quorum, and the meeting adjourned at 6:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Courtney
University Secretary
ATTACHMENTS:
April 6 Meeting Minutes - DRAFT (.doc)
Attendance Sheet (.doc)